|
|
|
|
|
|
by eo3x0
3333 days ago
|
|
|
I noticed that the commentary in this thread seems to be full of untruthful statements being thrown around as facts. This probably betrays the fact that the audience here is not very knowledgeable about mechanical watches, which was part of the curiousity mentioned in the original post. No, a run of the mill mechanical Seiko (say a Seiko 5 or even a SARB) will not run as accurately as a modern Patek. That's silly. Patek have their own Seal of quality guaranteeing a certain range of drift per day and performs well beyond COSC requirements. The typical Seiko wouldn't come close unless you're starting to get into Grand Seiko territory or Spring Drive movements which is a different league. Rolex vs PP on a typical 3 handed watch will have similar performance, with the Rolex probably fairing better due to the typical Rolex being designed (and QAed) for more extreme conditions. However, the most complicated Rolex is an annual calendar and this is where PP shine. |
|
|
But still nowhere near the PP league, price-wise.
I think you're the one who is being untruthful by introducing qualifications like "run of the mill" which I did not.
> This probably betrays the fact that the audience here is not very knowledgeable about mechanical watches
There are two aspects to understanding mechanical watches: the mechanics and the culture. People who buy a PP want not just a functional, quality timepiece--they want exclusivity. PP is not just a watch company, it is a luxury brand. And luxury brands create exclusivity via high prices--much higher than is strictly justified by the costs of manufacturing.
All this is to say that if another company wanted to replicate a PP, they could do it for less than the retail price of a PP. But there would be no point, because no one would buy it. Because there is nothing cool or exclusive about owning a Chinese knock-off of a Patek Philippe, no matter how well it works.